This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-423
entitled 'Environmental Cleanup: Better Communication Needed for
Dealing with Formerly Used Defense Sites in Guam' which was released on
April 11, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
Report to Congressional Requesters:
April 2002:
Environmental Cleanup:
Better Communication Needed for Dealing with Formerly Used Defense
Sites in Guam:
GAO-02-423:
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
DOD Scaled Back Its Efforts to Identify Additional Contaminated
Locations as Attention Shifted to Cleaning Up Locations Already
Identified:
Concerns about Identifying and Addressing Contamination Highlight Need
for Better Procedures and Communication:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Scope and Methodology:
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Table:
Table 1: Number of Potentially Contaminated Locations in DODís Guam
Inventory and the Identification Method Used:
Figures:
Figure 1: Navy Disposal Site at Orote Point Before Restoration:
Figure 2: DOD Debris Unearthed While Excavating Private Property in
Guam:
[End of section]
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
April 11, 2002:
The Honorable Joel Hefley:
The Honorable Gene Taylor:
The Honorable Robert Underwood:
House of Representatives:
The unexpected discovery of World War II-era chemical testing kits
containing diluted mustard gas and other chemicals on private property
in Guam, apparently left when the Department of Defense (DOD)
relinquished use of the property, has raised questions about other
contamination that may remain in Guam and the adequacy of DODís
efforts to identify and address the contamination. DOD is responsible
for cleaning up the environmental contamination resulting from its past
operations throughout the United States and its territoriesóa huge
undertaking that involves both public and private lands and tens of
billions of dollars. The task is especially complicated on formerly
used defense sitesóproperty formerly owned or used by DOD and now owned
by private parties or other government agenciesóbecause DOD often does
not know where all of the contamination is located or what types of
contamination may exist.
Identifying and addressing environmental contamination is particularly
challenging on the island of Guam, a U.S. territory located in the
western Pacific Ocean. Guam was a battlefield for U.S. and Japanese
military forces during World War II, and it has been a strategic
location for U.S. forces ever since. The entire island was under direct
military control following the defeat of Japanese forces in Guam in
1944, and DOD retained control of more than one-third of Guamís 212
square miles following the establishment of civilian rule in 1950. Over
the years, contamination of the soil and water occurred as DOD, in
carrying out its mission, disposed of its hazardous waste. DOD also
disposed of uncontaminated debris, such as jeep parts and other
material. The location of such waste may not be known because, until
the 1970s, disposal of contaminated waste and debris was not subject to
stringent environmental laws, and DOD did not maintain comprehensive
records on its disposal practices.
A number of federal and other agencies are involved in DODís
environmental restoration program in Guam. For example, on active
(including closing) DOD installations, the Air Force and the Navy are
responsible for identifying and addressing contamination. On formerly
used defense sites, DOD has delegated this responsibility through the
Army to the Corps of Engineers. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the Guam Environmental Protection Agency (Guam EPA)
provide regulatory oversight for DODís environmental restoration
program. DOD military services are also required to consult with the
communityófor example, by establishing restoration advisory boards to
receive community input on specific environmental cleanup projects.
Concerned about such incidents as the discovery of discarded chemical
testing kits, you asked us to determine (1) DODís process for
identifying locations of possible contamination and what locations were
identified in Guam and (2) the nature and extent of concerns about
identifying and addressing contamination in Guam raised by regulators
and other stakeholders, such as restoration advisory board members.
[Footnote 1]
Results in Brief:
DODís process for identifying potentially contaminated locations in Guam
has changed over the years. From the time DODís identification efforts
began in the early 1980s until the mid-1990s, this process involved
actively searching records, maps, and other sources of information for
such locations. This was a challenging task in Guam, especially on
formerly used defense sites, given the contamination and debris that
resulted from war-time battles and the limited records on disposal
activities that occurred decades before identification efforts began.
In the mid-1990s, partly in response to congressional direction to
become more aggressive in cleaning up known contamination instead of
continuing to identify new locations, DOD scaled back its
identification efforts nationally. Since then, DOD has limited its
efforts to search for potentially contaminated locations in Guam and
has relied primarily on referrals from Guam EPA and on incidental
discovery during construction and other operational activities to
identify potentially contaminated locations. Through the mid-1990s, DOD
identified a total of 202 potentially contaminated locations, including
155 on active installations and 47 on formerly used defense sites.
Since then, using this more limited approach to identify potential
contamination, five additional locations have been identified in Guamó
four on active installations and one on a formerly used defense site.
Based on DODís extensive past activities in Guam and the continuing
discoveries of potentially contaminated locations, stakeholders believe
that additional contaminated locations likely exist.
Stakeholders had no major concerns about DODís restoration program on
active military installations in Guam, but they had three concerns
regarding the Corpsí efforts to identify and address contamination on
formerly used defense sites. First, they were uncertain about the Corpsí
current process for adding potentially contaminated locations to its
Guam inventory. Stakeholders need clear referral policies and procedures
because they are the primary source of referrals of such locations to
the Corps. However, the Corps has not developed written guidelines for
stakeholders to use in referring such locations to it, including the
information stakeholders should provide. Furthermore, the Corps has not
effectively communicated to stakeholders the actions it plans to take on
referrals. Regulators said that because the process is unclear, they
have no assurance that the Corps has properly considered the referred
locations for inclusion in its Guam inventory. Second, stakeholders
were concerned that some locations containing debris such as metal and
tires were excluded from consideration, even though the waste was
caused by DOD and could place a financial burden on the owner to remove
it. These exclusions, however, are consistent with DOD policy, which
provides that DOD will only clean up debris that poses a threat to
human health or the environment. Third, stakeholders were concerned
about the slow pace of funding to clean up locations that had been
identified as eligible for the program. Between fiscal year 1984 and
2000, 4 percent of the total expected cost of cleaning up these
locations had been funded in Guam, compared with 16 percent nationwide.
The Corpsí explanation of this difference is that, even though
contaminated locations in Guam pose risks to human health and the
environment that are similar to risks posed by such locations
nationally, unfunded projects in Guam have ranked lower when the work
is sequenced. When sequencing work, the Corps considers not only a
contaminated locationís risk but also such factors as opportunities to
group projects together, especially in remote areas where logistics are
difficult and transportation costs are high, and concerns expressed by
affected stakeholders.
We are recommending that DOD, through the Army, develop written
guidelines for stakeholders in Guam to use when referring potentially
contaminated locations to the Corps and identify the information
stakeholders should include when they refer such locations. We are also
recommending that DOD, through the Army, improve efforts to communicate
with stakeholders in Guam to better inform them about policies and
procedures for referring potentially contaminated locations to the
Corps and actions it plans to take on referrals it receives. In
commenting on our draft report, DOD agreed with both of our
recommendations.
Background:
Under its environmental restoration program, DOD is responsible for
identifying and cleaning up contamination that is a threat to human
health or the environment and resulted from its past activities on
active and closing installations and on formerly used defense sites.
The types of contamination include petroleum products; heavy metals,
such as lead and mercury; paints and solvents; and other hazardous
substances. The restoration program also covers substances that may not
be contaminants, such as ordnance and explosive waste and unsafe
buildings and debris. The program is guided primarily by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, which amended the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980.[Footnote 2] DODís program also must comply with applicable
state laws. Under federal and state law, the EPA and state regulatory
agencies oversee DODís restoration program.
The Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Installations and
Environment, formulates policy and provides oversight for the
restoration program. In fiscal year 1997, program funding was
partitioned into five environmental restoration accounts: Army, Navy
(including Marine Corps), Air Force, formerly used defense sites, and
defensewide. The military services plan, program, and budget for
individual restoration projects. The Air Force administers its program
through its Environmental Restoration Branch; the Navy, through its
Naval Facilities Engineering Command; and the Army, through its
Environmental Center. The Army also administers the program at formerly
used defense sites through the Environmental Division of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. The restoration program at installations designated
for closure or mission realignment is funded separately, through the
Base Realignment and Closure program.[Footnote 3]
DODís environmental restoration program is one of the largest in the
United States, containing over 28,000 potentially contaminated
locations, and involves several stages. First, potentially contaminated
locations must be identified. Next, restoration program officials
assess locations to determine if they are eligible for cleanup under
the program. If a location is found to be on an active installation or
a formerly used defense site and is contaminated from past DOD
activities, the location is evaluated for risk and, if cleanup is
necessary, a cleanup approach is selected.[Footnote 4] Because DOD has
many projects in its inventory, it sets priorities for sequencing the
work. Eventually, the location is cleaned up or a remedy is put in place
and, if necessary, is monitored to ensure protection of human health and
the environment. Through fiscal year 2000, DOD had spent over $17
billion on its restoration program. Cleanup at most locations is
scheduled for completion by 2074, and the total expected cost of the
program is projected to be over $42 billion.[Footnote 5]
DOD Scaled Back Its Efforts to Identify Additional Contaminated
Locations as Attention Shifted to Cleaning Up Locations Already
Identified:
DODís efforts for identifying locations in Guam that may have
environmental contamination have been scaled back since the mid-1990s.
Under the current approach, DOD generally limits its efforts to search
for potentially contaminated locations, instead concentrating on
cleaning up locations already identified. Of the known contaminated
locations in Guam, most were identified when DOD, under an earlier
approach, funded major efforts to search for them. For both DOD-owned
property and formerly used defense sites, the Navy, the Air Force, and
the Corps conducted multiple organized searches for contamination in
the 1980s and early 1990s, usually through contracts with private
companies. The searches included activities such as reviewing records
and historical photographs, observing property conditions, and
interviewing knowledgeable individuals. If contamination was discovered
or suspected during a search, the location could be added to DODís
inventory. Since the mid-1990s, however, DOD has shifted its focus to
cleaning up contamination and generally has limited its efforts to
search for potentially contaminated locations. Since then, potentially
contaminated locations on active military installations have been
discovered through normal operations and construction activities, while
the Corps has relied primarily on regulators or community residents to
bring potentially contaminated locations on formerly used defense sites
to its attention. DOD has added far fewer locations to the Guam
inventory since the change in program emphasis. However, based on DODís
extensive past activities in Guam and the continuing discoveries of
potentially contaminated locations, regulators and other stakeholders
believe that additional undetected contamination may exist in Guam and
that a continuing process to identify that contamination is needed to
protect human health and the environment.
DODís Searches Have Identified Many Potentially Contaminated Locations:
Starting in the 1980s, DOD agencies conducted several searches to
identify potentially contaminated locations in Guam. The Navy, the Air
Force, and the Corps used similar approaches that generally involved
hiring contractors to, among other techniques, review archived records,
maps, and photographs; inspect property; and interview knowledgeable
individuals. These searches occurred on different occasions over the
years.[Footnote 6] For example, between 1984 and 1994, the Corps
conducted three separate searches in Guam to identify contaminated
locations. According to a Corps Honolulu District Office official, more
than one search was conducted because Corps officials had concerns that
all contaminated locations may not have been identified in the prior
studies. The identification of formerly used defense sites can be
difficult in Guam because land use and property transfer records are
hard to locate and are often incomplete.
Searches by the Navy, the Air Force, and the Corps identified a large
number of potentially contaminated locations on both active DOD
properties and formerly used defense sites.[Footnote 7] In addition,
several potentially contaminated locations were brought to DODís
attention through referrals from other parties, such as Guam EPA. For
all of Guam, a total of 202 potentially contaminated locations were
included in the DOD inventory, including 155 on active installations
and 47 on formerly used defense sites. The circumstances varied under
which DOD used these locations, as did the types of hazardous waste and
debris they contained. For example, for years the Air Force disposed of
construction debris, aircraft components, ordnance, and chemical waste,
such as pesticides, on private property located on the cliff-line
boundary of Andersen Air Force Base. At the same time, the Navy
disposed of paints, paint thinners, battery casings, and other material
on its own property, which was located near the ocean at Orote Point,
Guam. Figure 1 shows the Navyís disposal site before environmental
restoration action began.
Figure 1: Photograph of Navy Disposal Site at Orote Point Before
Restoration:
[Refer to PDF for image]
Source: Navy.
[End of figure]
Few Locations Were Identified after Emphasis Shifted from Identifying
Locations to Clean Up:
In the mid-1990s, as a result of congressional direction and the belief
that much of the environmental contamination had been found, DOD changed
its focus from identifying locations with potential contamination to
addressing contamination at the locations already identified. DOD
officials said that most contaminated locations had been found and that
the change in focus was a natural progression of the program. The
Congress was also concerned that DOD had not made much progress in
cleaning up identified locations and that more money was being spent on
identifying and studying locations than on the actual cleanup.
Consequently, in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996, the Congress set a goal for DOD to spend no more than 20 percent
of its environmental program funds for program support, studies, and
investigations.
Despite the shift in focus from identifying locations to addressing the
contamination already found, DOD continued to identify and add
potentially contaminated locations to its inventory in Guam, although
fewer locations were added than in the past (see table 1). While DOD
continued to fund some searches, such as one to identify chemical
warfare materials on the Fifth Field Marine Supply Depot in Guam,
restoration program officials began to rely primarily on others to
bring the locations to their attention. On active installations,
contamination was discovered as a result of construction or other
operational activities. For example, the Navy added two locations to
its inventory in 1995 that were discovered during construction
activities. On formerly used defense sites, the Corps began relying
primarily on agencies, such as Guam EPA, and other sources, such as
community residents, to identify potential locations. For example, Guam
EPA referred the only potentially contaminated location that the Corps
added to its inventory since the shift in program emphasis.
Table 1: Number of Potentially Contaminated Locations in DODís Guam
Inventory and the Identification Method Used:
Primary method for identifying locations: DOD searches (from early
1980s to mid-1990s);
DOD component: Air Force: 51;
DOD component: Navy: 104;
DOD component: Corps: 47;
Total: 202.
Primary method for identifying locations: Referrals from other parties
and operational activities (after mid-1990s);
DOD component: Air Force: 0;
DOD component: Navy: 4;
DOD component: Corps: 1;
Total: 5.
Primary method for identifying locations: Total;
DOD component: Air Force: 51;
DOD component: Navy: 108;
DOD component: Corps: 48;
Total: 207[A].
[A] Some of the potentially contaminated locations in DODís inventory
were ultimately found ineligible for cleanup under DODís environmental
restoration program. For example, of the 48 potential locations
identified by the Corps, 8 were not formerly used defense sites and 22
were not contaminated. For more information on Guam locations, see
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/GAO-01-1012SP/GM.html].
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
[End of table]
Stakeholders said they believe that not all contaminated locations in
Guam caused by DOD have been found. Given the extent of past DOD
operational activities in Guam, the few controls over disposal practices
during and after World War II, and the continuing discoveries of
contamination problems, this view seems reasonable. In part to respond
to congressional concerns, the Corps has budgeted $500,000 in fiscal
year 2002 to conduct an islandwide archival search in Guam to identify
formerly used defense sites with evidence of potential chemical warfare
material. Even with this effort, however, stakeholders will continue to
have an important role in alerting DOD agencies to potential
environmental hazards on the island.
Concerns about Identifying and Addressing Contamination Highlight Need
for Better Procedures and Communication:
Stakeholders raised no major concerns about DODís cleanup efforts on
active military installations, but raised three major concerns about the
Corpsí efforts to identify and address contamination on formerly used
defense sites in Guam.
* Their first concern is that the Corpsí current process for adding
potentially contaminated locations to its inventory is not clear to
them. We believe that the lack of clarity can be attributed to the
Corpsí failure to develop well-understood written guidelines for
stakeholders to use when referring such locations to the Corps,
including the information that should be included with the referrals.
We also found that the Corps has not effectively communicated to
stakeholders the actions it plans to take on the referrals.
* The second concern is that DOD excludes from the restoration program
debris that does not pose a threat to human health or the environment,
even though it was caused by DOD and could place a financial burden on
owners who incur costs to remove it. However, DOD policy provides for
cleaning up debris only if it is a threat to human health or the
environment.
* The third concern is the slow pace of funding environmental cleanup on
formerly used defense sites included in the restoration program. During
fiscal years 1984-2000, 4 percent of the total expected cost of
locations the Corps approved for cleanup had been funded in Guam while,
nationally, 16 percent had been funded, even though contaminated
locations in Guam posed risks to human health and the environment that
were similar to risks posed by such locations nationally. The Corps
explained that, consistent with DOD policy, the unfunded locations in
Guam ranked lower in sequencing work than the locations that were
funded nationally.
Process for Adding Potentially Contaminated Locations to Corpsí
Inventory Is Unclear to Stakeholders:
Stakeholders have reported that the process for referring potentially
contaminated locations to the Corps is unclear to them. Without a
clearly understood process, stakeholders cannot be sure that the Corps
is properly considering the referred locations for inclusion in its Guam
inventory. DOD policy requires the identification of contamination from
its past activities, but neither DOD nor Corps policy sets forth the
process that stakeholders should use when making referrals. In fact,
the Corpsí formerly used defense site program manual, which is its
primary document setting forth policy guidance for executing the
program, is silent on procedures stakeholders should use to make
referrals. Corps Pacific Ocean Division and Honolulu District Office
officials acknowledged that the division and district offices did not
have written guidelines explaining the referral process, but the Corps
district office program manager said the process was verbally explained
to Guam EPA and other stakeholders.[Footnote 8]
One area needing clarification is the information that should be
included with referrals of potentially contaminated locations.
Stakeholders were unclear about the information they should provide
when referring such locations to the Corps because the Corps had not
defined what information was required. Neither DOD nor Corps policy
sets forth the information required with referrals, and the Corps
district program manager said that the district office had provided no
written guidelines to stakeholders regarding information requirements.
Moreover, the program manager said that the referrals the Corps
district office had received were sometimes incomplete. For example,
the program manager told us that the information provided by Guam EPA
with an October 30, 1999, letter referring several potentially
contaminated locations was incomplete because there was no
documentation showing contamination or indicating that the locations
were likely formerly used defense sites. The program manager also said
that more information would be needed before the Corps would take any
action to determine whether the referred locations should be added to
the inventory. Guam EPA officials told us that, in the summer of 2001,
the Corps had verbally informed them that more information was needed
with their referrals, but it did not describe the specific information
needed. Rather than identifying the specific information that should be
included, the program manager asked that Guam EPA and others include as
much information as possible with any referrals, including information
that indicates that the locations were formerly used defense sites and
describes potential contamination associated with DOD activities.
These uncertainties have been exacerbated by poor communication between
the Corps and its stakeholders. Guam EPA officials told us that the
Corps often did not respond to or share much information about the
referrals it had received, so they did not know whether the Corps was
properly considering their referrals. For example, concerning several
referrals made between October 30, 1999, and May 18, 2000, the Guam
EPA administrator wrote a letter on June 20, 2000, to the district
engineer in the Corps Honolulu District Office complaining that no
feedback had been provided regarding whether the referred locations
were eligible for funding or what action the Corps planned to take on
the referrals. The Corps program manager had no written record of a
response to this letter. However, the program manager said that the
referrals had been verbally acknowledged with a Guam EPA official, who
was also told that no action to assess the referrals would be taken at
that time because there was no money available due to higher priority
work. The Guam EPA official did not recall receiving this information.
Stakeholders said that they discussed concerns about the formerly used
defense sites program with the Corps, but the concerns have not been
resolved. For example, EPA officials organized a work group to improve
the Corps Honolulu District Officeís process for dealing with formerly
used defense sites. Concerns about how to add locations and other issues
related to the Corpsí inventory process, such as what locations may
exist that are not on the inventory, were raised in the initial work
group meeting in January 2001. The meeting involved EPA, Guam EPA,
Corps district and division officials, and officials from other
interested federal agencies, such as the Fish and Wildlife Service, the
National Park Service, and the Coast Guard. EPA officials told us that
concerns about the inventory were also discussed at an August meeting
of the work group and would continue to be discussed in future
meetings. As of February 2002, the work group was still considering the
concerns.
In our view, improved communications on the part of the Corps would
help stakeholders better understand the process for referring
potentially contaminated locations to the Corps, including information
they should include with such referrals. Under the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act of 1986, EPA regulations, and DOD policy, the
Corps is required to consult with regulators and the public in the
decision-making process for environmental cleanup. Nationally, since
1994, restoration advisory boards have been the primary forum for
communities affected by contamination at formerly used defense sites to
keep informed of and participate in decisions affecting cleanup. Corps
policy is to establish a restoration advisory board for formerly used
defense sites that contain an active cleanup project if, among other
reasons, a board is requested by a government agency. However, there
currently is no restoration advisory board for formerly used defense
sites in Guam. In August 2001, Guam EPA asked the Corps Honolulu
District Office to establish a restoration advisory board for the
island. While none of the pending projects in Guam have progressed far
enough to be considered active and Corps district officials have
expressed concern about the cost of establishing a board in Guam, the
Corps district office engineer agreed in September 2001 that a board
would be a good tool and committed to discussing the issue with the
work group discussed previously. In addition, in August 2001, the
Corpsí formerly used defense sites national program manager visited
Guam, in part, to improve communications with regulators and assure
them that the Corps would be more responsive to their inquiries about
site eligibility.
Stakeholders Are Concerned that the Corps Is Not Cleaning Up Debris,
Although the Corpsí Approach Is Consistent with DOD Policy:
Stakeholdersí second concern is that the Corps has not accepted
responsibility for some apparent military debris discovered on private
property. For example, in 2001, a property owner unearthed military
debris while excavating for a foundation on a residential lot east of
Guamís capitol city. As figure 2 shows, the debris included jeep parts,
scrap metal, and other material, such as tires. The debris apparently
had been discarded and buried years before, when the lot was part of the
700-acre Fifth Field Marine Supply Depot. Upon discovering the debris,
the property owner notified Guam EPA, which in turn notified the Navy
and the Corps. After inspecting the site, the Corps Honolulu District
Office decided that since the debris contained no apparent toxic
materials, and, prior to excavation by the owner, had been buried, it
was not a threat to human health or the environment and was therefore
not eligible for funding under the restoration program.
Figure 2: Photograph of DOD Debris Unearthed While Excavating Private
Property in Guam:
[Refer to PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
The Corpsí decision to exclude this debris is consistent with DOD
policy, although it likely will result in a financial burden for the
property owner. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 authorizes using environmental restoration program funds to remove
unsafe debris, and DOD has adopted a policy that it only cleans up
debris that poses a threat to human health or the environment. DOD
officials stated that this policy is necessary, in part, to ensure that
most funding is directed toward cleaning up contamination from
hazardous and toxic waste that poses a greater risk to human health or
the environment. While the Corps followed DOD policy in making its
decision, the property owner may incur costs to remove the debris and
relocate the construction project. A stakeholder said that this type of
problem was likely to increase as more of Guamís limited land base is
developed.[Footnote 9]
Stakeholders Are Concerned about the Slow Progress in Cleaning Up
Identified Locations, but the Corpsí Approach Follows DOD Policy:
The third concern raised by stakeholders is that the Corps has not made
sufficient progress in cleaning up locations that the Corps has
accepted for inclusion in the restoration program. They said that
little work has been done to date or is scheduled in the next several
years. Despite the shift in focus in the mid-1990s to cleaning up
contaminated locations that have been identified, between fiscal year
1984 and 2000, the Corps spent $4.9 million on its environmental
restoration program in Guam, which represents 4 percent of the total
expected cost in Guam.[Footnote 10] Nationally, the Corps has spent
about 16 percent of the total expected cost of its restoration program.
Six of the 20 projects the Corps approved for cleanup action in Guam
have been completed, while 3 are scheduled for completion before 2011,
2 between 2011 and 2020, and 9 after 2021. Most of the completed
cleanup projects in Guam have involved removing hazardous waste and
underground storage tanks. The remaining work mostly involves removing
ordnance and explosive waste.[Footnote 11]
Corps officials acknowledged the difference in funding between Guam and
other locations, but they said that it was an appropriate outcome of the
Corpsí approach to prioritizing the sequence of work. The Corps
considers several factors in sequencing work, including the risk posed
to human health or the environment, legal obligations, stakeholder
concerns, and program management considerations.[Footnote 12]
Contaminated locations on formerly used defense sites in Guam have a
similar risk profile as locations nationally. Risk, therefore, does not
explain the difference in funding. Corps officials said that when other
factors besides risk are considered, projects in other locations emerge
with higher priority. For example, the Alaska District Office sometimes
combines low priority projects with high priority projects in remote
areas of Alaska to save transportation and other costs.
If new contamination is discovered, the Corps can reassess its
priorities and redistribute available funds to address the problem. For
example, a Guam landowner discovered World War II-era chemical testing
kits with diluted mustard gas and other chemicals on his property in
July 1999. Due to the potential threat, EPA conducted an emergency
response action and, within 3 weeks of discovery, it had removed 16
kits from the property. One week later, the Corps inspected the
property using ground-penetrating radar and removed 19 additional kits.
In March 2000, the Corps expanded its efforts to a 6-acre area
surrounding the property and removed at least 17 more kits. Overall,
the Corps spent over $4.6 million on this project, which represented
about 95 percent of all the environmental restoration funds it had
spent in Guam. To fund this unexpected effort, the Corps reallocated
funds from other projects within its Pacific Ocean Division and from
other sources, such as Corps headquarters.
Conclusions:
Despite DODís efforts to identify environmentally contaminated locations
in Guam, it is likely that some contamination has yet to be discovered.
Because DOD agencies now limit their efforts to search for the
contamination and instead rely primarily on others to identify such
locations, it is important to have a clearly understood process in
place for referring those locations to DOD. Although stakeholders
raised no major concerns about the process for active DOD
installations, the Corpsí process for adding potentially contaminated
locations to its formerly used defense site inventory is unclearóboth
the procedures to follow and the information to include. Without a
clear process, the Corps cannot ensure that it is carrying out its
environmental responsibilities properly. Furthermore, stakeholders
cannot be assured that they are meeting the Corpsí information needs.
Stakeholders need to better understand the process for referring
potentially contaminated locations to the Corps because the
stakeholders are the persons and entities most likely to make
referrals. Moreover, once the referrals have been made, communications
between the Corps and its stakeholders about actions the Corps plans to
take have been ineffective. Without knowing the actions that the Corps
plans to take on referrals, stakeholders have no assurance that the
Corps has properly considered the referrals to determine whether the
potential locations should be added to the inventory. By not effectively
communicating with stakeholders, the Corpsí process is not transparent,
and stakeholders lack the assurance they seek that the Corpsí
restoration program is properly implemented in Guam.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve DODís management of the process for identifying
contamination on formerly used defense sites in Guam, we recommend
that the secretary of the Department of Defense direct the secretary of
the Department of the Army to develop written guidelines for
stakeholders in Guam to use when referring locations of suspected
contamination to the Corps. The Army should also identify the
information that stakeholders should include when making such
referrals.
To improve stakeholdersí overall understanding of DODís restoration
program on formerly used defense sites in Guam, we recommend that the
secretary of the Department of Defense direct the secretary of the
Department of the Army to improve efforts to communicate with
stakeholders in Guam to better inform them about policies and procedures
for stakeholders to use when referring potential locations to the Corps
and the actions the Corps plans to take on the referrals it receives.
One way to do this would be to establish a restoration advisory board
for formerly used defense sites in Guam.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided DOD with a draft of this report for its review and comment.
DOD responded that, except for one concern, the draft report represented
a fair and accurate assessment of the Corpsí efforts to identify new
potentially contaminated sites in Guam and coordinate cleanup of those
sites with regulators and other stakeholders. DOD agreed with our
recommendations to develop written guidelines on its referral process
and to improve communications with stakeholders in Guam. DODís one
concern was that some information that it had provided to us during our
review, such as clarifying the types of materials found in Guam and the
conditions under which the Corps would establish a restoration advisory
board in Guam, was left out of the report. In finalizing our report,
however, we incorporated these and other DOD suggestions as
appropriate.
Regarding our recommendation that the Army develop written guidelines
for stakeholders in Guam to use when referring locations of suspected
contamination to the Corps, DOD agreed and stated that it would publish
such written guidelines and make them publicly available. DOD also
stated that its process in Guam could be improved and that the Corps has
undertaken a programwide improvement initiative to better coordinate
cleanup of formerly used defense sites with regulators and stakeholders.
One aspect of the initiative is the development of management action
plans, which also provide regulators with the opportunity to communicate
with the Corps on cleanup priorities and to notify the Corps about
other potentially contaminated locations. DOD stated that in response
to our recommendation, and as a first step in developing a management
action plan in Guam, it would direct the Army to convene interagency
meetings with Guam EPA to review the list of formerly used defense
sites and develop an updated inventory.
Regarding our recommendation that the Army improve efforts to
communicate with stakeholders in Guam, DOD agreed and said it would
direct the Army to develop a community relations plan for Guam that
describes the information needs of the community and tools the Corps can
use to reach out to the community, such as public meetings and
information papers. Through these tools, DOD stated that the Corps
would also be able to better communicate its procedures for referring
potentially contaminated locations. DOD also stated that establishment
of restoration advisory boards would be considered if there is
sufficient, sustained community interest and cleanup projects are
planned on the island. As we stated in our report, such boards are one
way to improve communications with stakeholders in Guam.
DOD also provided technical corrections, which we incorporated as
appropriate. DODís written comments on the draft report are included in
appendix I.
Scope and Methodology:
To determine the process used by DOD to identify potentially
contaminated locations in Guam and determine what locations were
identified, we reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations and DOD
policies and procedures and discussed DODís environmental restoration
program with DOD officials. We also visited DOD officials in Hawaii and
Guam to discuss the program and document their efforts to identify
environmental contamination in Guam. We reviewed each military
serviceís inventory of potentially contaminated locations in Guam and
the method by which the locations were discovered. We also discussed
DODís current inventory of contaminated locations with Guam EPA
officials and other stakeholders.
To determine the nature and extent of concerns about the environmental
restoration program raised by regulators and other stakeholders, we
discussed the program with Guam EPA officials and other interested
parties in Guam, such as restoration advisory board members and EPA
officials. To evaluate the concerns raised by stakeholders, we reviewed
relevant federal laws and regulations and DOD environmental restoration
program policies and procedures and discussed the program with DOD
headquarters and field officials. We also analyzed program funding in
Guam and nationally. We did not independently verify DODís funding data,
which forms the basis for DODís annual report to the Congress and is
publicly available.
We conducted our work from June 2001 to March 2002 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 5 days
after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of the
report to the secretary of defense; the administrator, Environmental
Protection Agency; and the administrator, Guam Environmental Protection
Agency. We will make copies available to others on request.
If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-
3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix II.
Signed by:
(Ms.) Gary L. Jones:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense:
Acquisition, Technology And Logistics:
3000 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, DC 20301-3000:
April 4, 2002:
Ms. Gary L. Jones:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Jones:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the General
Accounting Office (GAO) draft report, GAO-02-423, Environmental
Contamination: Process for Dealing with Formerly Used Defense Sites in
Guam Needs Strengthening, (GAO Code 360092).
In the attached response, DoD comments that with the exception of some
information previously provided to GAO about the FUDS program on Guam
that was not incorporated in the report, the draft report represents a
fair and accurate assessment of the Army Corps of Engineers' efforts to
identify new sites and coordinate Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS)
cleanup with regulators and the community.
For these reasons, DoD concurs with the first recommendation that the
Army Corps of Engineers develop procedures for regulatory agencies and
other stakeholders to use when referring locations of suspected
contamination on Guam to the Army Corps of Engineers. DoD will direct
Army to prepare a management action plan inventory of FUDS on Guam in
coordination with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
Guam EPA, and publish written guidelines for referral of new sites.
In regard to the second recommendation, DoD concurs that the Army Corps
of Engineers should improve efforts to communicate with stakeholders in
Guam. DoD will direct Army to develop a community involvement plan for
FUDS activities on Guam which will help raise community awareness and
provide opportunities for community participation in planned FUDS
activities. DoD will also direct the Army, where appropriate, to
establish Restoration Advisory Boards (RABs) for FUDS on Guam.
My point of contact on this matter, Mr. Kurt Kratz (703) 697-5372, is
available to discuss our responses to recommendations and additional
comments provided on this document.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Philip W. Leon, for:
Raymond F. DuBois, Jr.
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment):
Attachment:
GAO Draft Report Dated February 28, 2002:
(GAO Code 360092)
"Environmental Contamination: Process For Dealing With Formerly
Used Defense Sites In Guam Needs Strengthening"
Department Of Defense Comments To The Gao Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: To improve DoD's management of the process for
identifying contamination on formerly used defense sites in Guam, the
GAO recommended that the Secretary of the Department of Defense direct
the Secretary of the Department of the Army to develop procedures for
stakeholders in Guam to use when referring locations of suspected
contamination to the Corps. The Army should also identify the
information that stakeholders should include when making such
referrals. (pp. 15-16/GAO Draft Report) [Now on page 17]
DoD Response: DoD concurs with the recommendation. Although DoD
contends that the Corps has verbally communicated procedures for
regulatory agencies to use when referring locations of suspected
contamination to the Corps and has made an effort to coordinate
identification of suspected contamination with regulatory agencies, DoD
agrees that communication with regulatory agencies and other
stakeholders on Guam could be further improved. Towards that end, over
the last year the Corps of Engineers, under the Army's direction, has
undertaken a number of initiatives nationally with states, tribes, and
EPA, to better communicate and coordinate cleanup with stakeholders as
part of an overall FUDS Improvement Initiative. One recommendation
resulting from the initiative is the development of state-wide
management action plans (MAPs). Plan development would provide an
opportunity for regulatory agencies to communicate priorities on
cleanup as well as notify the Corps of Engineers about other sites. In
response to GAO's recommendation, therefore, DoD will direct the Army,
as a first step toward implementation of a MAP, to convene interagency
meetings with Guam EPA to review the list of FUDS properties on the
island, and develop a management action plan inventory, after
completion of the current archival search. DoD will also direct the
Army to develop specific written guidelines for regulatory agencies and
the public to use in referring new sites to the Corps of Engineers, and
to make those guidelines publicly available.
Recommendation 2: To improve stakeholders' overall understanding of
DoD's restoration program on formerly used defense sites in Guam, the
GAO recommended that the Secretary of the Department of Defense direct
the Secretary of the Department of the Army to improve efforts to
communicate with stakeholders in Guam to better inform them about
policies and procedures for stakeholders to use when referring
potential locations to the Corps and the actions the Corps plans to
take on the referrals it receives. One way to do this would be to
establish a restoration advisory board (RAB) for formerly used defense
sites in Guam. (p. 16/GAO Draft Report) [Now on page 17]
DoD Response: DoD concurs with the recommendation to improve
communications with stakeholders, especially community members. DoD
will direct the Army develop a community relations plan for Guam which
describes information needs of the community and tools the Corps of
Engineers can use for outreach. DoD envisions, that at least initially,
public meetings and information papers will be used to reach out to the
community. Through these vehicles, the Corps will be able to
communicate procedures for referring potential contaminant locations.
Establishment of a RAB will be considered provided there is sufficient,
sustained community interest and cleanup projects are planned on the
island.
[End of section]
Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
William R. Swick (206) 287-4851:
Byron S. Galloway (202) 512-7247:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the above, Don Cowan, Jonathan Dent, Doreen Feldman,
Susan Irwin, and Stan Stenersen made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] For this report, the term ďstakeholdersĒ means EPA or Guam EPA
regulators, restoration advisory board members, or community members.
[2] The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980, as amended, governs cleanup of the Nationís most
severely contaminated federal and nonfederal hazardous waste sites. The
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, which amended
that act, formally established DODís environmental restoration program.
In addition, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976,
as amended, a facility that treats, stores, or disposes of hazardous
waste must clean up current and prior contamination under an order or
as a condition of obtaining a permit from EPA or a state agency
authorized by EPA.
[3] Under the Base Realignment and Closure program, DOD identifies and
implements domestic military base realignments and closures authorized
by federal legislation during 1988-1995.
[4] We are currently examining the process DOD uses to determine that
no further action is needed to clean up formerly used defense sites.
[5] Included in this estimate are DOD costs for addressing
contamination on active installations as well as formerly used defense
sites and properties removed from DODís control as part of its Base
Realignment and Closure program.
[6] In addition to searches conducted under the environmental
restoration program, some installations conducted searches for solid
waste locations to address requirements under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended, and some Navy installations
conducted searches to meet DOD property transfer requirements under the
Base Realignment and Closure program.
[7] A number of the locations initially identified in the searches were
not added to the Guam inventory because they were duplicate locations
or did not meet program eligibility requirements. For example, one of
the Corpsí searches in Guam identified hundreds of potentially
contaminated locations, but after analyzing the data and doing some
additional investigation, the Corps added only 32 locations to its
inventory. Corps officials said that all the locations identified were
not included in its inventory, among other reasons, because the
locations were (1) duplicates, (2) situated on active DOD
installations, and (3) transferred from DOD control after October 17,
1986, which was the cutoff point for eligibility as formerly used
defense sites, in which case the transferring agency would be
responsible.
[8] The Corps Pacific Ocean Division has jurisdiction over the Honolulu
and Alaska District Offices. The Honolulu District Office includes
Hawaii, Guam, and other U.S. territories and possessions in the
Pacific.
[9] Guamís population growth rate averaged 2.3 percent annually between
1990 and 2000, almost twice the national average of 1.2 percent over
the same period.
[10] Funding figures in this report exclude program management and
support costs.
[11] For more information on the types of cleanup in Guam and
nationwide, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Environmental
Contamination: Cleanup Actions at Formerly Used Defense Sites,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-557] (Washington, D.C.:
July 31, 2001).
[12] For a discussion of issues associated with DODís need for a risk-
based funding approach, see U.S. General Accounting Office,
Environmental Cleanup: Too Many High Priority Sites Impede DODís
Program, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-94-133]
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 21, 1994). Program management considerations
include several factors, such as earmarking funds for some types of
contamination that would otherwise receive little or no funding under
the current risk-based approach. For example, DOD has allocated about
$40 million annually to clean up ordnance and explosive waste that
might not be funded under a strictly risk-based allocation system.
[End of section]
GAOís Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAOís commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAOís Web site [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and full text files of current
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The
Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using
key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,
including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ďTodayís Reports,Ē on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select ďSubscribe to daily E-mail
alert for newly released productsĒ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: